SECOND DIVISION
|
THELMA DUMPIT-MURILLO, Petitioner, - versus - |
G.R.
No. 164652 Present: Quisumbing, J.,* Chairperson, Carpio, Carpio Morales, Tinga, and VELASCO, JR., JJ. |
|
COURT OF APPEALS, ASSOCIATED
BROADCASTING COMPANY, JOSE JAVIER AND EDWARD TAN, Respondents. |
Promulgated: June
8, 2007 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition seeks to reverse and set aside both the Decision[1] dated
The facts of the case are as
follows:
On
x x x x
Dear Mr. Javier:
On
In view hereof, should I not receive any formal response from
you until
x x x x
A month later, petitioner sent a demand letter[7] to ABC, demanding:
(a) reinstatement to her former position;
(b) payment of unpaid wages for services rendered from September 1 to October
20, 1999 and full backwages; (c) payment of 13th month pay, vacation/sick/service
incentive leaves and other monetary benefits due to a regular employee starting
March 31, 1996. ABC replied that a check
covering petitioner’s talent fees for September 16 to
On December 20, 1999, petitioner filed a
complaint[8]
against ABC, Mr. Javier and Mr. Edward Tan, for illegal constructive dismissal,
nonpayment of salaries, overtime pay, premium pay, separation pay, holiday pay,
service incentive leave pay, vacation/sick leaves and 13th month pay
in NLRC-NCR Case No. 30-12-00985-99. She
likewise demanded payment for moral, exemplary and actual damages, as well as
for attorney’s fees.
The parties agreed to submit the case for resolution after settlement
failed during the mandatory conference/conciliation. On
On appeal, the NLRC reversed the Labor
Arbiter in a Resolution dated
WHEREFORE, the Decision of the Arbiter
dated
1) declaring
respondents to have illegally dismissed complainant from her regular work
therein and thus, ordering them to reinstate her in her former position without
loss of seniority right[s] and other privileges and to pay her full backwages,
inclusive of allowances and other benefits, including 13th month pay
based on her said latest rate of P28,000.00/mo. from the date of her
illegal dismissal on 21 October 1999 up to finality hereof, or at complainant’s
option, to pay her separation pay of one (1) month pay per year of service
based on said latest monthly rate, reckoned from date of hire on 30 September
1995 until finality hereof;
2) to
pay complainant’s accrued SILP [Service Incentive Leave Pay] of 5 days pay per
year and 13th month pay for the years 1999, 1998 and 1997 of P19,236.00
and P84,000.00, respectively and her accrued salary from 16 September
1999 to 20 October 1999 of P32,760.00 plus legal interest at 12% from
date of judicial demand on 20 December 1999 until finality hereof;
3) to
pay complainant moral damages of P500,000.00, exemplary damages of P350,000.00
and 10% of the total of the adjudged monetary awards as attorney’s fees.
Other monetary claims of complainant are dismissed for
lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[10]
After its motion for reconsideration was denied, ABC elevated
the case to the Court of Appeals in a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The petition was first dismissed for failure
to attach particular documents,[11] but was
reinstated on grounds of the higher interest of justice.[12]
Thereafter, the appellate court ruled that the NLRC committed
grave abuse of discretion, and reversed the decision of the NLRC.[13] The appellate court reasoned that petitioner should
not be allowed to renege from the stipulations she had voluntarily and
knowingly executed by invoking the security of tenure under the Labor Code. According to the appellate court, petitioner was
a fixed-term employee and not a regular employee within the ambit of Article
280[14] of the Labor Code
because her job, as anticipated and agreed upon, was only for a specified time.[15]
Aggrieved, petitioner now comes to
this Court on a petition for review, raising issues as follows:
I.
THIS HONORABLE COURT CAN REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF THE HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS, THE DECISION OF WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW OR WITH THE
APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT[;]
II.
THE PRO-FORMA TALENT CONTRACTS, AS CORRECTLY FOUND BY THE NLRC
– FIRST DIVISION, ARE “ANTI-REGULARIZATION DEVICES” WHICH MUST BE
STRUCK DOWN FOR REASONS OF PUBLIC POLICY[;]
III.
BY REASON OF THE CONTINUOUS AND SUCCESSIVE RENEWALS OF THE
THREE-MONTH TALENT CONTRACTS, AN EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP WAS CREATED AS
PROVIDED FOR UNDER ARTICLE 280 OF THE LABOR CODE[;]
IV.
BY THE CONSTRUCTIVE DISMISSAL OF HEREIN PETITIONER, AS A
REGULAR EMPLOYEE, THERE WAS A DENIAL OF PETITIONER’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS THUS
ENTITLING HER TO THE MONEY CLAIMS AS STATED IN THE COMPLAINT[.][16]
The issues for our disposition are: (1) whether or not this
Court can review the findings of the Court of Appeals; and (2) whether or not under
Rule 45 of the Rules of Court the Court of Appeals committed a reversible error
in its Decision.
On the first issue, private respondents contend that the
issues raised in the instant petition are mainly factual and that there is no
showing that the said issues have been resolved arbitrarily and without basis. They
add that the findings of the Court of Appeals are supported by overwhelming
wealth of evidence on record as well as prevailing jurisprudence on the matter.[17]
Petitioner however contends that this Court can review the
findings of the Court of Appeals, since the appellate court erred in deciding a
question of substance in a way which is not in accord with law or with
applicable decisions of this Court.[18]
We agree with petitioner. Decisions, final orders or
resolutions of the Court of Appeals in any case — regardless of the nature of
the action or proceeding involved — may be appealed to this Court through a
petition for review. This remedy is a continuation of the appellate
process over the original case,[19] and considering
there is no congruence in the findings of the NLRC and the Court of Appeals
regarding the status of employment of petitioner, an exception to the general
rule that this Court is bound by the findings of facts of the appellate court,[20] we can review
such findings.
On the second issue, private respondents contend that the Court
of Appeals did not err when it upheld the validity of the talent contracts
voluntarily entered into by petitioner. It further stated that prevailing
jurisprudence has recognized and sustained the absence of employer-employee
relationship between a talent and the media entity which engaged the talent’s
services on a per talent contract basis, citing the case of Sonza v. ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation.[21]
Petitioner avers however that an employer-employee
relationship was created when the private respondents started to merely renew
the contracts repeatedly fifteen times or for four consecutive years.[22]
Again, we agree with petitioner. The
Court of Appeals committed reversible error when it held that petitioner was a
fixed-term employee. Petitioner was a regular employee under contemplation of
law. The practice of having fixed-term contracts in the industry does not
automatically make all talent contracts valid and compliant with labor law. The
assertion that a talent contract exists does not necessarily prevent a regular
employment status.[23]
Further, the Sonza case is not applicable. In Sonza,
the television station did not instruct Sonza how to perform his job. How Sonza
delivered his lines, appeared on television, and sounded on radio were outside
the television station’s control. Sonza had a free hand on what to say or
discuss in his shows provided he did not attack the television station or its
interests. Clearly, the television station did not exercise control over the
means and methods of the performance of Sonza’s work.[24] In the case at bar, ABC had control over
the performance of petitioner’s work. Noteworthy too, is the comparatively low P28,000
monthly pay of petitioner[25] vis the P300,000
a month salary of Sonza,[26] that all the more
bolsters the conclusion that petitioner was not in the same situation as Sonza.
The contract of employment of petitioner with ABC had the
following stipulations:
x x x x
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES – TALENT agrees to
devote his/her talent, time, attention and best efforts in the performance of
his/her duties and responsibilities as Anchor/Program Host/Newscaster of the
Program, in accordance with the direction of ABC and/or its authorized
representatives.
1.1. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES – TALENT
shall:
a. Render his/her services as a newscaster on the Program;
b. Be involved in news-gathering operations by conducting interviews on- and off-the-air;
c. Participate
in live remote coverages when called upon;
d. Be
available for any other news assignment, such as writing, research or camera
work;
e. Attend
production meetings;
f.
On assigned days, be at the studios at least one
(1) hour before the live telecasts;
g. Be
present promptly at the studios and/or other place of assignment at the time
designated by ABC;
h. Keep
abreast of the news;
i.
Give his/her full cooperation to ABC and its
duly authorized representatives in the production and promotion of the Program;
and
j. Perform such other functions as may be assigned to him/her from time to time.
x x x x
1.3 COMPLIANCE
WITH STANDARDS, INSTRUCTIONS AND OTHER
RULES AND REGULATIONS – TALENT agrees that he/she will promptly and
faithfully comply with the requests and instructions, as well as the program
standards, policies, rules and regulations of ABC, the KBP and the government
or any of its agencies and instrumentalities.[27]
x x x x
In Manila
Water Company, Inc. v. Pena,[28]
we said that the elements to determine the existence of an employment
relationship are: (a) the selection and
engagement of the employee, (b) the payment of wages, (c) the power of
dismissal, and (d) the employer’s power to control. The most important element
is the employer’s control of the employee’s conduct, not only as to the result
of the work to be done, but also as to the means and methods to accomplish it.[29]
The duties of petitioner as enumerated in her employment
contract indicate that ABC had control over the work of petitioner. Aside from control, ABC also dictated the work
assignments and payment of petitioner’s wages. ABC also had power to dismiss her. All these being present, clearly, there existed
an employment relationship between petitioner and ABC.
Concerning regular employment, the law provides for two kinds
of employees, namely: (1) those who are
engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the
usual business or trade of the employer; and (2) those who have rendered at
least one year of service, whether continuous or broken, with respect to the
activity in which they are employed.[30] In other words, regular status arises from
either the nature of work of the employee or the duration of his employment.[31] In
…[T]he primary standard for determining regular employment is
the reasonable connection between the particular activity performed by the
employee vis-à-vis the usual trade or business of the employer. This connection can be determined by
considering the nature of the work performed and its relation to the scheme of
the particular business or trade in its entirety. If the employee has been performing the job
for at least a year, even if the performance is not continuous and merely
intermittent, the law deems repeated and continuing need for its performance as
sufficient evidence of the necessity if not indispensability of that activity
to the business. Hence, the employment
is considered regular, but only with respect to such activity and while such
activity exists.[33]
In our view, the requisites for regularity of employment have
been met in the instant case. Gleaned
from the description of the scope of services aforementioned, petitioner’s work
was necessary or desirable in the usual
business or trade of the employer which includes, as a pre-condition for its enfranchisement,
its participation in the government’s news and public information
dissemination. In addition, her
work was continuous for a period of four years. This repeated engagement under contract of
hire is indicative of the necessity and desirability of the petitioner’s work
in private respondent ABC’s business.[34]
The contention of the appellate court that
the contract was characterized by a valid fixed-period employment is untenable.
For such contract to be valid, it should
be shown that the fixed period was knowingly and voluntarily agreed upon by the
parties. There should have been no force,
duress or improper pressure brought to bear upon the employee; neither should
there be any other circumstance that vitiates the employee’s consent.[35]
It should satisfactorily appear that the
employer and the employee dealt with each other on more or less equal terms
with no moral dominance being exercised by the employer over the employee.[36]
Moreover, fixed-term employment will not
be considered valid where, from the circumstances, it is apparent that periods
have been imposed to preclude acquisition of tenurial security by the employee.[37]
In the case at bar, it does not appear
that the employer and employee dealt with each other on equal terms. Understandably, the petitioner could not object
to the terms of her employment contract because she did not want to lose the
job that she loved and the workplace that she had grown accustomed to,[38]
which is exactly what happened when she finally manifested her intention to
negotiate. Being one of the numerous newscasters/broadcasters
of ABC and desiring to keep her job as a broadcasting practitioner, petitioner
was left with no choice but to affix her signature of conformity on each
renewal of her contract as already prepared by private respondents; otherwise,
private respondents would have simply refused to renew her contract. Patently, the petitioner occupied a position of weakness vis-à-vis the employer. Moreover, private respondents’ practice of
repeatedly extending petitioner’s 3-month contract for four years is a
circumvention of the acquisition of regular status. Hence, there was no valid fixed-term
employment between petitioner and private respondents.
While this Court has recognized the validity of
fixed-term employment contracts in a number of cases, it has consistently
emphasized that when the circumstances of a case show that the periods were
imposed to block the acquisition of security of tenure, they should be struck
down for being contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public
policy.[39]
As a regular employee, petitioner is
entitled to security of tenure and can be dismissed only for just cause and
after due compliance with procedural due process. Since private respondents did not observe due process
in constructively dismissing the petitioner, we hold that there was an illegal
dismissal.
WHEREFORE, the
challenged Decision dated
Costs against private respondents.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Acting Chief Justice |
WE CONCUR:
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
|
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions
in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.`
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Acting Chief Justice |
* Acting Chief Justice.
[1] Rollo, pp. 207-220. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo F. Sundiam, with Associate Justices Eubulo G. Verzola and Remedios Salazar-Fernando concurring.
[2]
[3]
[4] CA rollo, pp. 105-107.
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11] Rollo, p. 180.
[12]
[13]
[14] ART. 280. Regular and Casual Employment.—The provisions of written agreement to the contrary notwithstanding and regardless of the oral agreement of the parties, an employment shall be deemed to be regular where the employee has been engaged to perform activities which are usually necessary or desirable in the usual business or trade of the employer, except where the employment has been fixed for a specific project or undertaking the completion or termination of which has been determined at the time of the engagement of the employee or where the work or services to be performed is seasonal in nature and the employment is for the duration of the season.
An employment shall be deemed to
be casual if it is not covered by the preceding paragraph: Provided,
That, any employee who has rendered at least one year of service, whether such
service is continuous or broken, shall be considered a regular employee with
respect to the activity in which he is employed and his employment shall
continue while such activity exists.
[15] Rollo, p. 217.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19] Pagoda
Philippines, Inc. v. Universal Canning, Inc., G.R. No. 160966, October 11,
2005, 472 SCRA 355, 359.
[20] Cirelos v. Hernandez, G.R. No.
146523,
[21] G.R. No. 138051,
[22] Rollo, pp. 420-421.
[23] See ABS-CBN
Broadcasting Corporation v. Marquez, G.R. No. 167638,
[24] See
Sonza v. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corporation, supra note 21, at 599, which also held that in the
[25] Rollo, p. 95.
[26] Supra note 21, at 596.
[27] CA rollo, p. 113.
[28] G.R. No. 158255,
[29]
[30] Philippine Fruit & Vegetable
Industries, Inc. v. NLRC, G.R. No. 122122, July 20, 1999, 310 SCRA 673,
681.
[31] Bernardo
v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 122917,
[32] G.R. No. 151827,
[33]
[34] Samson v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 113166,
[35] Brent
School, Inc. v.
[36] Pangilinan v. General
Milling Corporation, id.
[37] Integrated
Contractor and Plumbing Works, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 152427,
[38] Rollo, p. 425.
[39] Innodata Philippines, Inc. v.
Quejada-Lopez, G.R. No. 162839,